GameBanshee Forums

I'm about to create my first IWD2 party. 3rd Edition rules sure are more complex than the 2nd edition ones, and it seems to be tailor made for the min/maxing munchins so that they can create the ultimate power-party.

For me the "charm" of the older AD&D games were the restrictions, like Clerics only allowed to use blunt weapons and Paladins needing to have very good stats. Now any character can use any weapon and any Lawful Good character, now matter how ugly, weak, stupid, clumsy and unpleasant can be a Paladin.
Why not remove classes all together?
And I really miss the actual *rolling* of character stats. Now it's mechanical and boring, all characters are equally average (any socialist's wet dream) and the shift has gone very much from role playing to power playing.
But at least multi-classing make more sense now.

Anyway, after much reading of manual and forums, I think I've come up with the party I want.
I have some strict guidelines:
All races must be represented. Since there are seven races, I'll ditch the half-elves, since they are bastards.
All classes must (eventually) be represented, but since anyone can be anything that is no problem.
Paladins will not travel with evil characters.

So I ended up with this party:

Half-Orc Barbarian
Halfling Ranger 1/Rogue
Wild Elf Paladin 1-2/Sorceror
Dwarf Fighter
Deep Gnome Cleric
Human Monk 1-3/Druid

I recommend omitting the paladin and monk levels, it makes a huge difference if you can cast high level spells or not.

One level of paladin for a sorcerer is not a bad idea. The boost to saves can really help.
Also, the monk/druid combo isn't bad, but stick with one level of monk.
The Fighter could use some multiclassing, I'd suggest Barbarian.

As for your gripes with 3.0 rules, at least now the rules make sense. Rolling wasn't a fair method for stats. For a PC game, ok, you could reroll all you want, but not for a one-roll-is-a-go tabletop game. Besides, in 3.0, rolling is still allowed for stats.
I found it irritating and unfounded that clerics were limited to bludgeoning weapons.
Your but-ugly paladin won't be very effective, so they're still required to have pretty good stats.

GawainBS wrote:One level of paladin for a sorcerer is not a bad idea. The boost to saves can really help.
Also, the monk/druid combo isn't bad, but stick with one level of monk.
The Fighter could use some multiclassing, I'd suggest Barbarian.

As for your gripes with 3.0 rules, at least now the rules make sense. Rolling wasn't a fair method for stats. For a PC game, ok, you could reroll all you want, but not for a one-roll-is-a-go tabletop game. Besides, in 3.0, rolling is still allowed for stats.
I found it irritating and unfounded that clerics were limited to bludgeoning weapons.
Your but-ugly paladin won't be very effective, so they're still required to have pretty good stats.

3.0 may be more logical and "realistic", but with it AD&D has lost it's uniqueness and it now is like any other generic RPG, which I for one think is a pity.

BTW, how about Sorceror or Wizard levels for the Figher, to get Blur and Mirror Image?

I never had problems with my pure sorcereress because of a failed save, I surely would have had more problems if she lost spellpower.
Just look at the manual to see the spells you can cast per day, how many spells you know, and what the difference in effeciency is (nearly all spell effects are level-dependent) if your sorc is level 3 instead of 4, 4 instead of 5, ....

It's wiser giving 1-3 paladin levels to your fighter or maybe rogue, even if he doesn't have high charisma or wisdom.

PS: you forgot to add a bard to your all classes party.

octavius wrote:3.0 may be more logical and "realistic", but with it AD&D has lost it's uniqueness and it now is like any other generic RPG, which I for one think is a pity.

BTW, how about Sorceror or Wizard levels for the Figher, to get Blur and Mirror Image?

The Plague was unique as well... I, for one, am glad that it is (nearly) gone.

Level of Wizard would be nice too, yes.

kmonster wrote:I never had problems with my pure sorcereress because of a failed save, I surely would have had more problems if she lost spellpower.
Just look at the manual to see the spells you can cast per day, how many spells you know, and what the difference in effeciency is (nearly all spell effects are level-dependent) if your sorc is level 3 instead of 4, 4 instead of 5, ....

It's wiser giving 1-3 paladin levels to your fighter or maybe rogue, even if he doesn't have high charisma or wisdom.

PS: you forgot to add a bard to your all classes party.

Paladin levels with low charisma would be bad. It's trade-off for sorcerers, yes. Some don't like the loss in spellpower, others like the boost to saves.
IIRC, on the forum here, there's build with a Druid/Bard/Monk. Check one of the powerparty stickies.

If you add sorcerer or wizard levels to your fighter, he won't be a a fighter any more, just a invincible mage with a little unimportant boost in spellless combat.
Keep in mind you have to boost int or cha for this.
A specialist wizard is probably the best in this case, you can also take a bard since lingering song is very useful.